http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IN RECENT CONTRETEMPS among Democrats and Republicans,
discerning viewers can see two distinguishing features of modern political
life: the shameless exaggeration of social ills and the deliberate rape of
the English language.

The pattern recurs in everything from talk about gun control -- where
Democrats are ignoring the fact that gun violence is and has been on the
decline -- to Republican gibbering about entitlements. But the most curious
bit of dishonesty involves the universal complaint about "negative
campaigning."

Everyone claims to hate it, and most politicians say they detect it in
their opponents' advertisements and stump speeches. But in truth, the
phenomenon has rarely shown itself this political season.

A negative ad spreads a malicious falsehood. Lyndon Johnson practiced the
art when he insinuated that Barry Goldwater would incinerate the planet.

Democratic hacks committed it months ago when they claimed to have pictures
of George W. Bush doing the funky chicken in the buff in an unnamed saloon.

No man in the race today has tried to smear his fellow party members in
such ways. Al Gore makes a great show of talking about the great honor of
sharing a stage with such a man as Bill Bradley -- whatever that means --
and George W. Bush and John McCain have swapped endearments that seem to
verge on heavy petting.

We hear widespread whining not because would-be presidents believe they
have suffered actionable slander, but because they want to avoid talking
about the rightful core of any campaign -- their ideas and records. Each of
the histrionic offers to rise above "negativity" are but sly appeals for
wall-to-wall imbecility.

The "negative ad" tag is a classic example false labeling. The commercials
in question more properly should be called "issue ads" -- and we need more
of them, not less. It matters what a candidate says and does. The public
winked at Bill Clinton's indiscretions in 1992 and now most of us have a
profound case of buyer's remorse.

People at this juncture have little clue about candidates' beliefs and only
cartoonish views of their character. New Hampshire independent voters seem
equally enamored of John McCain and Bill Bradley, for instance, despite vast
differences between the two on everything from abortion to the conduct of
war.

But we live in a cautious age, and politicians reveal only as much of their
hearts as they feel compelled to show. They need a good shove. And this is
where issue brawls figure in.

Consider the hidden virtues of two much-criticized attacks.

First is Steve Forbes' claim that George W. Bush broke a no-taxes pledge as
governor of Texas. The assault is true. Early on, Bush sought to hike sales
taxes in exchange for an even bigger cut in property taxes. He got nowhere
with the idea -- just as Michigan's John Engler lost a similar bid to
rejigger the tax system in Michigan. Chastened, he rammed through the two
largest tax cuts in Texas history.

The complaint actually illuminated one of Bush's virtues: He learns from
his mistakes. He messed up, fessed up and he made up for his lapse.

Example Two: Al Gore accused Bill Bradley of voting against a Midwestern
flood-relief bill in 1993. True again: Bradley rejected the measure -- after
giving his assent to other measures providing billions in flood relief --
because some of his colleagues cynically loaded it up with pork-barrel
projects completely unrelated to the natural disaster. Senior Democrats from
the Midwest also voted nay on the legislation. As with the Bush case, a
"negative" attack provided an opportunity to highlight the candidate's
virtues and, conversely, a way of gauging the assailant's seriousness.

So let the "negativity" flourish! This year's campaign is alarmingly tame
by historical standards and politicians could stand to have their mettle
tested. The campaign of 2000 is shaping up to become the most ideological
since 1984, and perhaps the most riveting since 1960. Al Gore and Bill
Bradley are running left during the primaries, while Republicans are running
vaguely toward the right. This sets the stage for a showdown over important
things: the size of government, the virtues of public education, the limits
of environmentalism, the future of Social Security and federally regulated
health care -- and that's for starters.

Issue ads will force candidates to show their cards -- and thus make it
easier for us to do the right thing in the primaries and on Election
Day.